'Blacks Need Not Apply' sign would fit Oracle HQ, suit claims but cheap visas AOK

'Blacks Need Not Apply' sign would fit Oracle HQ, suit claims but cheap visas AOK

Clipped from: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/06/blacks-need-not-apply-sign-would-be-appropriate-for-oracle-hq-lawsuit-claims/ 

Shareholder claims firm has talked diversity but has been ‘miserable failure’ on it 

Oracle talks the diversity talk but doesn’t walk the walk, and that’s hurting the company, a lawsuit claims. 

“A sign advising applicants ‘Blacks Need Not Apply’ might as well hang at the entrance to the company’s headquarters,” the suit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco against the Redwood City software titan alleges. 

The legal action by a shareholder against the company and its board of directors cites a 2019 regulatory filing by Oracle that says, “Diversity and inclusion in our workforce starts at the top.” The suit includes names and photos of the company’s 14 board members. 

“Oracle’s board, which has no Black individuals, has consciously failed to carry out Oracle’s written proclamations about increasing diversity in its ranks,” the suit claims, noting that Oracle was founded in 1977. “Oracle’s board today in 2020 has no African‐Americans and no Latinos, and no Asian‐American or other minority representatives aside from Vishal Sikka. The company’s executive ranks also lack a single Black person. 

“Oracle has no real commitment to diversity and its board is turning a blind eye to the company’s miserable failure to ensure the ‘diversity’ trumpeted by the directors in Oracle’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and its annual reports to shareholders.” 

Oracle declined to comment on the lawsuit’s claims. 

The suit points to two Congressional inquiries into the make-up of Oracle’s board, one of which led to a letter last year from the House Tech Accountability Caucus that said, “The fact that African Americans make up 13% and Asian Americans make up 5.6% of the U.S. population but 0% of Oracle’s board and leadership team is inexcusable.” 

A lawsuit by news outlet Reveal “showed that Oracle’s workforce, as of 2015, was 90% white or Asian,” the suit alleges. 

The suit notes that Oracle is also being sued by the U.S. Department of Labor, which alleged in a filing last year that the company systematically favored Asians in hiring, and paid women, Blacks and Asians less, with pay disparities costing workers more than $400 million in lost wages. Oracle has denied that claim, shareholder R. Andre Klein’s suit acknowledges. 

Directors’ alleged “misconduct” led to “severe financial and reputational damage to Oracle,” his suit claims, adding that the federal government is seeking “hundreds of millions of dollars in back pay for affected minorities, including Black individuals.” 

The lawsuit is demanding that three Oracle directors resign and that the company nominate three replacements, two of them Black and one from a different minority group. It also demands that the directors donate all their 2020 compensation to “an acceptable charity or organization whose efforts include the advancement of Black people and minorities in corporate America.” 

  

Read More

Senate defeats attempt to eliminate H-1B, backlog relief from Budget Reconciliation Bill

Senate defeats attempt to eliminate H-1B, backlog relief from Budget Reconciliation Bill

11.3.2005

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) announced on November 3, 2005, that we have achieved a partial victory in trying to gain H-1B cap and immigrant visa backlog relief.

On October 20, the Senate Judiciary Committee, as part of the budget reconciliation process, held a markup of proposed legislation which, if passed, would provide temporary relief from the H-1B visa cap and the employment-based immigrant visa backlogs in exchange for increased filing fees on some petitions. This marked up bill was passed out of the Committee by a very strong 14-2 vote. In a nutshell, the final package would:

• Impose a new $500 fee on immigrant visa petitions for the EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories.
• Recapture unused employment-based visas from prior years for immediate allocation of up to 90,000/year.
• Exempt spouses and minor children from counting against the annual cap on employment-based immigrant visas.
• Allow individuals to apply for adjustment of status before an immigrant visa is deemed currently available. (Of course, approval could not occur until the visa number is available.)
• Recapture approximately 300,000 unused H-1B numbers dating back to FY 1991. As a result of an amendment by Senator Feinstein, 30,000 rather than 60,000 would be available annually. (In other words, effectively raising the cap from 65,000 to 95,000 for at least 10 years.)
• Impose a new fee on the recaptured H-1B visas so that the fees on the original 65,000 H-1B allotment remain unchanged but the additional 30,000 available annually carry an additional $500 fee.
• Impose a new $750 fee on L-1 visas. (This was part of Senator Feinstein’s amendment and was necessary to offset the reduction in revenue resulting from the limitation on recaptured H-1B numbers from 60,000 to 30,000.)

Earlier this week, during floor debate on the Senate’s overall reconciliation package (S. 1932), Senator Byrd offered an amendment to remove from the final package the H-1B and immigrant visa retrogression relief provisions passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and replace them with a provision that mirrored the House’s version, which simply imposes a $1,500 fee increase on L visas. Yesterday, that amendment was rejected by an overwhelming vote of 85-14. This is a tremendous victory for foreign nationals, their, employers, and the U.S. economy. The Senate ultimately approved the Budget Reconciliation Package by a vote of 52-47.

Unfortunately, the Senate’s package still must be reconciled in conference with the House’s alternative budget reconciliation bill which, as noted above, imposes a $1,500 fee increase on L visas. It is imperative that our representatives in Congress continue to be contacted. We must maintain the pressure on Congress.

Read More

Feinstein, Klobuchar, Colleagues Urge Administration to Increase Number of Doctors Available to Fight the Coronavirus Pandemic

Apr 15 2020

Washington – Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) joined Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Representatives Tom Cole (R-Okla.), Abby Finkenauer (D-Iowa), Brad Schneider (D-Ill.) and a group of their colleagues in both the House and Senate to write to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) urging the administration to waive restrictions that prevent doctors on certain employment-based visas—including doctors in the Conrad 30 program—from providing medical care at locations or in specialties other than those specifically approved for their immigration status. Without a waiver of these restrictions, doctors on H-1B and J-1 visas who provide care in crisis locations, even remotely, would be putting their immigration status in jeopardy.

“USCIS should immediately waive the requirements of the 2015 Simeio guidance for health care providers seeking changes in previously approved employment or new concurrent employment during the current public health emergency. Such a decision would give our nation’s health care providers the flexibility that is needed to mount an adequate response during this emergency. Doctors need to be able to act now to use their knowledge and training to save lives without fear of the loss of their immigration status,” the lawmakers wrote.

In addition to Feinstein and Klobuchar, the letter was signed by Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Angus King (I-Maine), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).

In addition to Cole, Finkenauer, and Schneider, the letter was signed by Representatives Kendra Horn (D-Okla.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), Donna Shalala (D-Fla.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), Ron Kind (R-Wis.), John Katko (R-N.Y.), Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.), Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Xochitl Torres Small (D-N.M.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Terri Sewell (D-Al.), Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio.), Bill Foster (D-Ill.), Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), David Trone (D-Md.), Cindy Axne (D-Iowa), Albio Sires (D-N.J.), Darren Soto (D-Fla.), Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), Joe Kennedy (D-Ma.), Danny Davis (D-Ill.), David Price (D-N.C.)and John Larson (D-Conn.).

Currently, many doctors from other countries training in the United States are required to return to their home country for two years after their training has ended before they can apply for another visa or green card. The Conrad 30 program allows doctors to stay in the United States without having to return home if they agree to practice in an underserved, often rural, area for three years. The “30” refers to the number of doctors per state that can participate in the program.

Earlier this month, Feinstein, Klobuchar, Schneider, Finkenauer and Cole, along with colleagues in both the House and the Senate, wrote to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) urging the Administration to resume premium processing for physicians seeking employment-based visas.

The letter is available here and below:

Dear Mr. Cuccinelli:

We write to express our concern that regulations for the H-1B and J-1 visa programs are standing in the way of our nation’s having the strongest possible medical response to COVID-19. Medical professionals holding these visas are generally not permitted to provide medical care at locations or in specialties other than those specifically approved for their immigration status. We urge you to waive such restrictions during the public health emergency to increase the number of physicians available to respond to COVID-19.

As you know, H-1B visas are available to workers in “specialty occupations,” which includes licensed physicians. Hospitals and health care providers across the nation, and particularly those in rural regions, rely on this visa program to fill critical vacancies at their facilities. As part of the visa approval process, providers must submit to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Form I-129, which requires employers to identify where and for how long the visa holder will work for the duration of their status. Any changes require a new I-129 per guidance issued by USCIS in 2015.  Similarly, physician residents and fellows on J-1 visas are assigned to a specific employer, location, and specialty, and changes are practically impossible during an approved program year.

While these policies are well intended, the current public health crisis requires a robust and timely medical response that begins with getting physicians to the front lines. Health care workers on H-1B and J-1 visas—including physicians in the Conrad State 30 program, which helps retain U.S.-trained physicians who work in underserved areas—are a key resource in this process. State and local governments as well as health care providers have found that the site-specificity for work authorization has prevented physicians holding an H-1B or J-1 status from transferring to hospitals and facilities that are overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients or are experiencing staff shortages due to quarantine requirements. Even telemedicine programs, which can provide needed surge capacity to underserved and rural areas, often cannot employ these physicians to serve patients. Moreover, there are concerns among providers that H-1B and J-1 visa holders may not even be permitted to provide services outside of their medical specialty, even if they are otherwise qualified to do so.

We therefore urge you to grant health care providers relief as soon as possible so that our nation’s critical resources can be effectively deployed. USCIS should immediately waive the requirements of the 2015 Simeio guidance for health care providers seeking changes in previously approved employment or new concurrent employment during the current public health emergency. Such a decision would give our nation’s health care providers the flexibility that is needed to mount an adequate response during this emergency. Doctors need to be able to act now to use their knowledge and training to save lives without fear of the loss of their immigration status.

Thank for your attention to this important matter. We look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely, 

Read More

Kilpatrick Townsend partner is shot and killed; he had chaired Townsend before its merger

Kilpatrick Townsend partner is shot and killed; he had chaired Townsend before its merger

BY DEBRA CASSENS WEISS

OCTOBER 31, 2016, 8:04 AM CDT

•   
•   
•   
•   
• 

James Gilliland, an intellectual property partner at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, was shot and killed on his front porch in El Cerrito, California, on Thursday evening.

Police said Gilliland, 62, was shot shortly before 9 p.m. as he was returning to his home from a social engagement, report the San Francisco Chronicle, the East Bay Times, NBC Bay Area and the Recorder (sub. req.). El Cerrito police Lt. Robert De La Campa told the Chronicle it wasn’t known whether Gilliland was stalked or followed, or whether he was a robbery victim.

Gilliland was chairman of Townsend & Townsend & Crew from 2001 to 2010, before it merged and became Kilpatrick Townsend, according to the Recorder. He was chairman of the firm’s litigation department from 2013 to 2015. His clients included Apple, Oracle and Sony.

Kilpatrick managing partner Susan Spaeth expressed condolences and called him “an absolute pillar” of the law firm in a statement published at the firm’s website.

“We are deeply saddened by the death of our colleague, friend and partner, Jim Gilliland,” Spaeth said. “Our most heartfelt condolences and sympathies go to Jim’s family and all of his colleagues, friends and clients.

“Jim was dedicated to his wife, Vickie, his four children and his parents. They were the center of his life. His passions spanned from spending time with his family to singing, enjoying the arts, travel and sports.

“Jim was an absolute pillar of our law firm. He was our trusted colleague and close friend, as well as a mentor and role model to so many. Jim will be missed deeply. He was truly a great lawyer, and his many clients trusted him with their most difficult cases. Jim had been successfully trying cases in federal and state courts around the country for 35 years. Over his amazing career, Jim led our firm in many ways—as managing partner, chairman, and most recently served as chairman of our litigation department.

“It is truly a great loss for the Kilpatrick Townsend family and the legal community. We offer our thoughts and prayers to Jim’s family and friends.”

Read More

The Governor of the State of California

Read More

Hacking Peoplesoft by Pegasus Spyware by NSO Group - winners take all leave the rest dead

Read More

The Secret Fraud behind the Oracle v Peoplesoft hostile takeover

FBI 

CIA

FTC

SEC 

Read More

2004-10-04: PeopleSoft CEO Conway Ousted

In a surprise move, business software maker PeopleSoft Inc. fired CEO Craig Conway Friday, divorcing itself from the feisty leader who engineered the company's dogged resistance to a $7.7 billion takeover bid by rival Oracle Corp.

PeopleSoft's board replaced Conway with its chairman and founder David Duffield, who also is the Pleasanton-based company's largest shareholder.

The board appointed Kevin Parker, PeopleSoft's chief financial officer, and Phil Wilmington, the company's top sales executive, as co-presidents.

In a statement, PeopleSoft's board attributed the shake up to "a loss of confidence in Mr. Conway's ability to continue to lead the company."

Conway, hired five years ago to replace Duffield as CEO, has been staunchly fighting to keep PeopleSoft out of Oracle's clutches for nearly 16 months.

Almost as soon as Oracle launched its hostile takeover attempt, Conway defiantly dug in his heels, describing the bid as "atrociously bad behavior" and while lambasting Oracle CEO Larry Ellison as a sociopath.

Conway formerly worked under Ellison at Redwood Shores-based Oracle, a dynamic that spiced a soap opera that has riveted Silicon Valley.

Friday's move comes a week after PeopleSoft held a customer conference where Conway reiterated the company's resolve to resist Oracle's bid, which received a major boost last month when a federal judge rejected an attempt to block the proposed deal for competitive reasons.

The court decision prompted many shareholders to begin pressuring PeopleSoft to open talks with Oracle.

It's unclear how Conway's ouster might affect PeopleSoft's stance toward Oracle's bid. Ellison has repeatedly asked to meet with PeopleSoft to negotiate the terms of a bid that currently stands at $21 per share, but the board has refused throughout the battle.

In Friday's statement, the company noted that all five members on the board committee that has unanimously rejected Oracle's offer remain in place.

Investors seemed to believe the deal is now more likely to be consummated now that Conway is out of the way. PeopleSoft's shares surged during Friday's early trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Oracle shares were up, too.

PeopleSoft also delivered a pleasant surprise Friday by disclosing its sales of new software licenses for the just-completed third quarter exceeded $150 million. Many industry analysts had expected PeopleSoft's software sales to fall below $100 million in the quarter, largely because customers are so uncertain about the company's fate.

With Conway gone and the company coming off a surprisingly strong quarter, "many shareholders seem to believe PeopleSoft's board will now have the leverage to get a higher price," said American Technology Research analyst Donovan Gow.

But Gow still suspects Duffield, who founded PeopleSoft in 1987, might have reservations about selling to Oracle, his company's fiercest foe.

"PeopleSoft is Dave Duffield's baby," Gow said. "He may just as adamant as Conway" about fending off Oracle.

In a statement Friday, Duffield said he intends to focus on "a relentless commitment to our customers, and a renewed drive to keep PeopleSoft a great place to work for all employees."

Oracle has indicated it will fire more than half of PeopleSoft's 11,500 employees if it buys the company.

Read More

 

15 U.S. Code § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

• U.S. Code
• Notes
• State Regulations

prev | next

Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.

(a)Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade

(1)

Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.

(2)

The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except banks, savings and loan institutions described in section 57a(f)(3) of this title, Federal credit unions described in section 57a(f)(4) of this title, common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce, air carriers and foreign air carriers subject to part A of subtitle VII of title 49, and persons, partnerships, or corporations insofar as they are subject to the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, as amended [7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.], except as provided in section 406(b) of said Act [7 U.S.C. 227(b)], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.

(3)This subsection shall not apply to unfair methods of competition involving commerce with foreign nations (other than import commerce) unless—

(A)such methods of competition have a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect—

(i)

on commerce which is not commerce with foreign nations, or on import commerce with foreign nations; or

(ii)

on export commerce with foreign nations, of a person engaged in such commerce in the United States; and

(B)

such effect gives rise to a claim under the provisions of this subsection, other than this paragraph.

If this subsection applies to such methods of competition only because of the operation of subparagraph (A)(ii), this subsection shall apply to such conduct only for injury to export business in the United States.

(4)

(A)For purposes of subsection (a), the term “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” includes such acts or practices involving foreign commerce that—

(i)

cause or are likely to cause reasonably foreseeable injury within the United States; or

(ii)

involve material conduct occurring within the United States.

(B)

All remedies available to the Commission with respect to unfair and deceptive acts or practices shall be available for acts and practices described in this paragraph, including restitution to domestic or foreign victims.

(b)Proceeding by Commission; modifying and setting aside orders

Whenever the Commission shall have reason to believe that any such person, partnership, or corporation has been or is using any unfair method of competition or unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce, and if it shall appear to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public, it shall issue and serve upon such person, partnership, or corporation a complaint stating its charges in that respect and containing a notice of a hearing upon a day and at a place therein fixed at least thirty days after the service of said complaint. The person, partnership, or corporation so complained of shall have the right to appear at the place and time so fixed and show cause why an order should not be entered by the Commission requiring such person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from the violation of the law so charged in said complaint. Any person, partnership, or corporation may make application, and upon good cause shown may be allowed by the Commission to intervene and appear in said proceeding by counsel or in person. The testimony in any such proceeding shall be reduced to writing and filed in the office of the Commission. If upon such hearing the Commission shall be of the opinion that the method of competition or the act or practice in question is prohibited by this subchapter, it shall make a report in writing in which it shall state its findings as to the facts and shall issue and cause to be served on such person, partnership, or corporation an order requiring such person, partnership, or corporation to cease and desist from using such method of competition or such act or practice. Until the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time, or, if a petition for review has been filed within such time then until the record in the proceeding has been filed in a court of appeals of the United States, as hereinafter provided, the Commission may at any time, upon such notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any report or any order made or issued by it under this section. After the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time, the Commission may at any time, after notice and opportunity for hearing, reopen and alter, modify, or set aside, in whole or in part any report or order made or issued by it under this section, whenever in the opinion of the Commission conditions of fact or of law have so changed as to require such action or if the public interest shall so require, except that (1) the said person, partnership, or corporation may, within sixty days after service upon him or it of said report or order entered after such a reopening, obtain a review thereof in the appropriate court of appeals of the United States, in the manner provided in subsection (c) of this section; and (2) in the case of an order, the Commission shall reopen any such order to consider whether such order (including any affirmative relief provision contained in such order) should be altered, modified, or set aside, in whole or in part, if the person, partnership, or corporation involved files a request with the Commission which makes a satisfactory showing that changed conditions of law or fact require such order to be altered, modified, or set aside, in whole or in part. The Commission shall determine whether to alter, modify, or set aside any order of the Commission in response to a request made by a person, partnership, or corporation under paragraph [1] (2) not later than 120 days after the date of the filing of such request.

(c)Review of order; rehearing

Any person, partnership, or corporation required by an order of the Commission to cease and desist from using any method of competition or act or practice may obtain a review of such order in the court of appeals of the United States, within any circuit where the method of competition or the act or practice in question was used or where such person, partnership, or corporation resides or carries on business, by filing in the court, within sixty days from the date of the service of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the Commission be set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Commission, and thereupon the Commission shall file in the court the record in the proceeding, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. Upon such filing of the petition the court shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined therein concurrently with the Commission until the filing of the record and shall have power to make and enter a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside the order of the Commission, and enforcing the same to the extent that such order is affirmed and to issue such writs as are ancillary to its jurisdiction or are necessary in its judgement to prevent injury to the public or to competitors pendente lite. The findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive. To the extent that the order of the Commission is affirmed, the court shall thereupon issue its own order commanding obedience to the terms of such order of the Commission. If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Commission, the court may order such additional evidence to be taken before the Commission and to be adduced upon the hearing in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Commission may modify its findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and it shall file such modified or new findings, which, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of its original order, with the return of such additional evidence. The judgment and decree of the court shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court upon certiorari, as provided in section 1254 of title 28.

(d)Jurisdiction of court

Upon the filing of the record with it the jurisdiction of the court of appeals of the United States to affirm, enforce, modify, or set aside orders of the Commission shall be exclusive.

(e)Exemption from liability

No order of the Commission or judgement of court to enforce the same shall in anywise relieve or absolve any person, partnership, or corporation from any liability under the Antitrust Acts.

(f)Service of complaints, orders and other processes; return

Complaints, orders, and other processes of the Commission under this section may be served by anyone duly authorized by the Commission, either (a) by delivering a copy thereof to the person to be served, or to a member of the partnership to be served, or the president, secretary, or other executive officer or a director of the corporation to be served; or (b) by leaving a copy thereof at the residence or the principal office or place of business of such person, partnership, or corporation; or (c) by mailing a copy thereof by registered mail or by certified mail addressed to such person, partnership, or corporation at his or its residence or principal office or place of business. The verified return by the person so serving said complaint, order, or other process setting forth the manner of said service shall be proof of the same, and the return post office receipt for said complaint, order, or other process mailed by registered mail or by certified mail as aforesaid shall be proof of the service of the same.

(g)Finality of orderAn order of the Commission to cease and desist shall become final—

(1)

Upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, if no such petition has been duly filed within such time; but the Commission may thereafter modify or set aside its order to the extent provided in the last sentence of subsection (b).

(2)Except as to any order provision subject to paragraph (4), upon the sixtieth day after such order is served, if a petition for review has been duly filed; except that any such order may be stayed, in whole or in part and subject to such conditions as may be appropriate, by—

(A)

the Commission;

(B)

an appropriate court of appeals of the United States, if (i) a petition for review of such order is pending in such court, and (ii) an application for such a stay was previously submitted to the Commission and the Commission, within the 30-day period beginning on the date the application was received by the Commission, either denied the application or did not grant or deny the application; or

(C)

the Supreme Court, if an applicable petition for certiorari is pending.

(3)For purposes of subsection (m)(1)(B) and of section 57b(a)(2) of this title, if a petition for review of the order of the Commission has been filed—

(A)

upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari, if the order of the Commission has been affirmed or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals and no petition for certiorari has been duly filed;

(B)

upon the denial of a petition for certiorari, if the order of the Commission has been affirmed or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals; or

(C)

upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of issuance of a mandate of the Supreme Court directing that the order of the Commission be affirmed or the petition for review be dismissed.

(4)In the case of an order provision requiring a person, partnership, or corporation to divest itself of stock, other share capital, or assets, if a petition for review of such order of the Commission has been filed—

(A)

upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari, if the order of the Commission has been affirmed or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals and no petition for certiorari has been duly filed;

(B)

upon the denial of a petition for certiorari, if the order of the Commission has been affirmed or the petition for review has been dismissed by the court of appeals; or

(C)

upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of issuance of a mandate of the Supreme Court directing that the order of the Commission be affirmed or the petition for review be dismissed.

(h)Modification or setting aside of order by Supreme Court

If the Supreme Court directs that the order of the Commission be modified or set aside, the order of the Commission rendered in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court shall become final upon the expiration of thirty days from the time it was rendered, unless within such thirty days either party has instituted proceedings to have such order corrected to accord with the mandate, in which event the order of the Commission shall become final when so corrected.

(i)Modification or setting aside of order by Court of Appeals

If the order of the Commission is modified or set aside by the court of appeals, and if (1) the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari has expired and no such petition has been duly filed, or (2) the petition for certiorari has been denied, or (3) the decision of the court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, then the order of the Commission rendered in accordance with the mandate of the court of appeals shall become final on the expiration of thirty days from the time such order of the Commission was rendered, unless within such thirty days either party has instituted proceedings to have such order corrected so that it will accord with the mandate, in which event the order of the Commission shall become final when so corrected.

(j)Rehearing upon order or remand

If the Supreme Court orders a rehearing; or if the case is remanded by the court of appeals to the Commission for a rehearing, and if (1) the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari has expired, and no such petition has been duly filed, or (2) the petition for certiorari has been denied, or (3) the decision of the court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, then the order of the Commission rendered upon such rehearing shall become final in the same manner as though no prior order of the Commission had been rendered.

(k)“Mandate” defined

As used in this section the term “mandate”, in case a mandate has been recalled prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of issuance thereof, means the final mandate.

(l)Penalty for violation of order; injunctions and other appropriate equitable relief

Any person, partnership, or corporation who violates an order of the Commission after it has become final, and while such order is in effect, shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation, which shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a civil action brought by the Attorney General of the United States. Each separate violation of such an order shall be a separate offense, except that in a case of a violation through continuing failure to obey or neglect to obey a final order of the Commission, each day of continuance of such failure or neglect shall be deemed a separate offense. In such actions, the United States district courts are empowered to grant mandatory injunctions and such other and further equitable relief as they deem appropriate in the enforcement of such final orders of the Commission.

(m)Civil actions for recovery of penalties for knowing violations of rules and cease and desist orders respecting unfair or deceptive acts or practices; jurisdiction; maximum amount of penalties; continuing violations; de novo determinations; compromise or settlement procedure

(1)

(A)

The Commission may commence a civil action to recover a civil penalty in a district court of the United States against any person, partnership, or corporation which violates any rule under this subchapter respecting unfair or deceptive acts or practices (other than an interpretive rule or a rule violation of which the Commission has provided is not an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of subsection (a)(1)) with actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is unfair or deceptive and is prohibited by such rule. In such action, such person, partnership, or corporation shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation.

(B)If the Commission determines in a proceeding under subsection (b) that any act or practice is unfair or deceptive, and issues a final cease and desist order, other than a consent order, with respect to such act or practice, then the Commission may commence a civil action to obtain a civil penalty in a district court of the United States against any person, partnership, or corporation which engages in such act or practice—

(1)

after such cease and desist order becomes final (whether or not such person, partnership, or corporation was subject to such cease and desist order), and

(2)

with actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive and is unlawful under subsection (a)(1) of this section.

In such action, such person, partnership, or corporation shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation.

(C)

In the case of a violation through continuing failure to comply with a rule or with subsection (a)(1), each day of continuance of such failure shall be treated as a separate violation, for purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B). In determining the amount of such a civil penalty, the court shall take into account the degree of culpability, any history of prior such conduct, ability to pay, effect on ability to continue to do business, and such other matters as justice may require.

(2)

If the cease and desist order establishing that the act or practice is unfair or deceptive was not issued against the defendant in a civil penalty action under paragraph (1)(B) the issues of fact in such action against such defendant shall be tried de novo. Upon request of any party to such an action against such defendant, the court shall also review the determination of law made by the Commission in the proceeding under subsection (b) that the act or practice which was the subject of such proceeding constituted an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of subsection (a).

(3)

The Commission may compromise or settle any action for a civil penalty if such compromise or settlement is accompanied by a public statement of its reasons and is approved by the court.

Read More